Free speech? I'm not so sure. But I probably would have voted in favor for the stripper. My reason being is that something about this case really pisses me off.

These days, gangs are running amok. They are murdering children, innocent people living their lives, and police officers. Drug dealers are ruining the lives of children and their families. Child predators abound and some who rape children only get a few months jail time.

Does any of that enrage these high-and-mighty phonies? No. Not one bit. Instead, what do they use our police departments for? To scare consenting adults. As long as they can stick their nose in other peoples' business, they're happy.

I wonder sometimes, if these people went after violent criminals with the same zeal as the go after consenting adults, how much better off our cities would be?

This judge should run for Governor of Oregon, since he is clearly one of the greatest Freedom Fighters in the state, and then hopefully he could run for President. I'd vote for him even if he's a Republican!

You would vote for someone for president because he declared lap dances to be free speech?

Free speech? I'm not so sure. But I probably would have voted in favor for the stripper. My reason being is that something about this case really pisses me off.

These days, gangs are running amok. They are murdering children, innocent people living their lives, and police officers. Drug dealers are ruining the lives of children and their families. Child predators abound and some who rape children only get a few months jail time.

Does any of that enrage these high-and-mighty phonies? No. Not one bit. Instead, what do they use our police departments for? To scare consenting adults. As long as they can stick their nose in other peoples' business, they're happy.

I wonder sometimes, if these people went after violent criminals with the same zeal as the go after consenting adults, how much better off our cities would be?

Of course, I've never been of the opinion that the Constitution did a very good job of enumerating or properly prioritizing what our rights should be, anyway.

So, in other words, if you had the power, you would choose (or people who agree with you at least) to decide what our rights should be, because the Constitution didn't do it "correctly". Nice.

Is there something wrong with looking at the Constitution with a critical eye? I wouldn't call any of the Founding Fathers infallible, as you suggest.

no, but they've done a pretty good job so far

That's neither here nor there. If there's something missing in the Constitution, it should be added. If there's something in the Constitution that shouldn't be there, it should be taken out. Any other position is an appeal to tradition fallacy.

The present case is considerably more difficult than most previous posters have assumed. Let us remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the rights of filmmakers to portray sexual acts. It is true, the court has upheld limits on "obscene" speech, but the obscenity bar is an exceptionally high one. Certainly, if a filmmaker produced a movie depicting a strip club, then it would be unconstitutional to censor the film. On the other hand, the underlying activities that were themselves filmed could be considered crimes. This is indeed a curious dichotomy, which the Supreme Court has not quite resolved.

Effective policing requires to know when backing down is in the best interest of public safety. By all accounts, the culture of the Ferguson Police was ignorant of that fact, and instead treated Cartman of South Park as a role model for how to be a police officer.

Not free speech, but the right to privacy. The right to privacy is a right implied in the constitution, just like judicial review is an implied and inherint power for the courts.

The Constitution expressly states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases ... arising under this Constitution." The plain meaning of this clause is that the judiciary has the power to determine whether legislation violates the Constitution, because any charge that an act of Congress violates the Constitution is obviously a case "arising under this Constitution." Thus, even though the Constitution does not use the term "judicial review," it grants the power using equivalently strong words explicitly (not implicitly, as is often asserted). I would challenge anyone to find an equally explicit statement in the Constitution that guarantees a right that is equivalent to the so-called "right to privacy."

Not free speech, but the right to privacy. The right to privacy is a right implied in the constitution, just like judicial review is an implied and inherint power for the courts.

The Constitution expressly states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases ... arising under this Constitution." The plain meaning of this clause is that the judiciary has the power to determine whether legislation violates the Constitution, because any charge that an act of Congress violates the Constitution is obviously a case "arising under this Constitution." Thus, even though the Constitution does not use the term "judicial review," it grants the power using equivalently strong words explicitly (not implicitly, as is often asserted). I would challenge anyone to find an equally explicit statement in the Constitution that guarantees a right that is equivalent to the so-called "right to privacy."

I believe that most people "find" the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment, as in the Roe vs Wade decision. I could possibly see using the 9th Amendment to support lap dances, easier than the 14th.

I believe that most people "find" the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment, as in the Roe vs Wade decision. I could possibly see using the 9th Amendment to support lap dances, easier than the 14th.

Don't you mean the 4th Amendment? The 14th doesn't seem to have much to do with privacy.

I would challenge anyone to find an equally explicit statement in the Constitution that guarantees a right that is equivalent to the so-called "right to privacy."

Quote from: IV Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

That's the procedural due process half of the right to privacy, as for whether the substantive due process half is also found in the constitution depends to some extent on one's interpretation of the fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments as to whether they add substantive due process. Given the wording of the ninth, I'd say that those who would argue against substantive due process need to show cause why it does not exist.

I believe that most people "find" the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment, as in the Roe vs Wade decision. I could possibly see using the 9th Amendment to support lap dances, easier than the 14th.

Don't you mean the 4th Amendment? The 14th doesn't seem to have much to do with privacy.

From the Roe V Wade decision "MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.....3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy,"

I would challenge anyone to find an equally explicit statement in the Constitution that guarantees a right that is equivalent to the so-called "right to privacy."

Quote from: IV Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

The Fourth Amendment guarantees privacy in specific instances: specifically, it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and even reasonable searches and seizures when made without a warrant. However, it does not guarantee a generic or universal right to privacy that includes, for example, the right to use contraceptive devices or the right to abortion.

Quote

That's the procedural due process half of the right to privacy, as for whether the substantive due process half is also found in the constitution depends to some extent on one's interpretation of the fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments as to whether they add substantive due process. Given the wording of the ninth, I'd say that those who would argue against substantive due process need to show cause why it does not exist.

One can address the two amendments separately.

The unenumerated rights that the Ninth Amendment refers to encompass everything that the federal government is not authoirized to do. Thus, since the federal government is not authorized to regulate intrastate commerce, there is an unenumerated right against federal regulation of intrastate commerce. The Ninth Amendment simply means that, just because only some restrictions on federal power are explicitly mentioned, it does not follow that no other restrictions exist. Obviously, one cannot sensibly incorporate this amendment with respect to the states, just as one cannot incorporate the Tenth Amendment.

As to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: substantive due process is a contradiction in terms. Due process is about exactly that: process. From the time of the Magna Carta until the nineteenth century, the meaning of the term "due process of law" was perfectly clear: it meant merely the process required by the law. It was not interpreted to include any notion of "fairness" or substantive rights, at least until Chief Justice Roger Taney came along and twisted the meaning of the clause in Dred Scott. Thus, when the Constitution states that no-one may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it simply means that any such deprivation must be in accordance with the law, rather than arbitrarily imposed by the executive or judiciary.

I believe that most people "find" the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment, as in the Roe vs Wade decision. I could possibly see using the 9th Amendment to support lap dances, easier than the 14th.

Don't you mean the 4th Amendment? The 14th doesn't seem to have much to do with privacy.

From the Roe V Wade decision "MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.....3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy,"

Ah, I see where your misinterpretation lies. The fourth amendment is what many suppose actually grants the right to privacy. However, the bill of rights (first ten amendments) didn't apply to the individual states before the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth doesn't really grant any new rights, only extends existing ones in the federal constitution to the states.

Effective policing requires to know when backing down is in the best interest of public safety. By all accounts, the culture of the Ferguson Police was ignorant of that fact, and instead treated Cartman of South Park as a role model for how to be a police officer.

I won't argue legal niceties here.. but suffice to say I struggle to imagine how a lap dance could be figured as "speech" - perhaps we need a new word to clarify and separate this from speech - "Free rights to 'performance' regardless of the nature of said performance on Private Property" or something of that nature. (Yes, I'm very aware of how that could be read - but I not bothered right now to go into any detail.)

Logged

Quote

Keith R Laws ‏@Keith_Laws Feb 4As I have noted before 'paradigm shift' is an anagram of 'grasp dim faith'

Would making arm pit fart noises in front of everyone count as free speech? What about performing a gay marriage or an abortion in front of the White House? Would there be any civil tort remedies? Discuss.

Effective policing requires to know when backing down is in the best interest of public safety. By all accounts, the culture of the Ferguson Police was ignorant of that fact, and instead treated Cartman of South Park as a role model for how to be a police officer.